Round 2, Division 1, Match 35 [Star Wars V wins 31-30]

[dethwing]

In the second upset, and first truly close match, Blade Runner barely edged by heavy favorite Lion King. Can it continue the magic against one of the 3 star wars movies?

[Jedo the Jedi]

Psst, dethwing, the answer is no.

[Vader]

Wow this is actually a little closer than I thought it would be.
_________________
Duct tape is like the force they both have a light side and a dark side and they bind the universe together.

[extro...]

Do I recall a bunch of kvetching here along the lines of "Blade Runner? What is Blade Runner?"

[dethwing]

I saw it when it came around the first time (in the first round). I don't need to see it again. It was awful. (Though everyone seems to disagree and pretend it was about all these fancy wonderful things, when in reality it was just about a man hunting down some androids for no apparent reason)

*Stops Rambling*

[Samadhi]

Damn, why'd Bladerunner have to go up against V?
It will probably lose, heck I think I'll even have to vote against it.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Samadhi]

[dethwing]

I haven't read that, so I can't really argue with you.

Still, if there was a point to the entire thing it was completely hiden.

[dethwing]

Case in point: Spoilers (If you believe this nonsense)

I was just over at IMDB reading their message boards for this movie, and they think Deckard is a replicant. What rubbish. Obviously, people made this up so that they would think that the movie was more interesting than it was. Only when you start conjuring up "What if..." scenarios, does the movie become anything more than a paper-thin plot.

The concept had never even occured to me before now. I still wonder where they got the idea. Do you believe that? Is that why you like this movie?

[Antrax]

dethwing, do you remember how I offered to explain the movie to you in the original thread? I was serious. The thing you invissed is:
a) widly accepted, and is really the whole point
and
b) only the first of a long line of things you have probably missed.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Scurra]

In another thread, someone said that they didn't see any sheep in "The Silence of the Lambs". This is somewhat similar (in a "not-very-similar-at-all" kind of way )

But yes, that is rather the point of the story - there're no two ways about it.

(It reminds me of the related stuff with "Total Recall", when the director gave different interviews depending upon whether the interviewer hadn't seen the film, had seen it once or had seen it more than once, since the story is beautifully poised between two explanations and each viewing persuades you that the other one is the right one!)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Samadhi]

I'm sure Buzz was imploying parody.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[dethwing]

Oh come on, you don't actually buy that do you? What makes you think it's true?

[Antrax]

For one, I read the book.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[dethwing]

That's the reason I didn't like 2001 a space oddesy. It made no sense without reading the book.

[extropalopakettle]

I thought the movie (2001) was far better than the book (so did Arthur C. Clarke), and I enjoyed the movie many times, on the big screen, before reading the book.

[Antrax]

dethy, it's not imposible to understand without reading the book, either. But from what I gathered, you don't have a lot of movie experience, so to speak, so I thought it would make for a more convincing explanation.
Basically, there are "hints" (motives and metaphores would be more accurate words to use here) to this strewn all through the movie.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[dethwing]

Well in my opinion, if a movie leaves "hints" that are so obscure than can only be understood by reading the book, or watching the movie 10 times, it's not worth the effort.

Movies should be inviting. You should rewatch them because you enjoy them, not because your desperate to pick up on clues.

[Duke Gnome]

There is one major clue, right at the end, (The origami unicorn). This should be enough to figure it out, and then, knowing this, your second run through should enable you to spot other occasions where it is alluded to. A lot of these aren't that hard to spot once you're 'in on it'

[dethwing]

That "Clue" left me even more confused. There was nothing to indicate what it means....

Uh...What does it mean?

[Antrax]

Once again, I believe these hints are not so obscure to most people, and think you only missed it because, again, you don't have a lot of movie experience. This is the same for every form of art - inexperienced people miss the subtleties.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[dethwing]

That's such an elitist comment.

[Antrax]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's just the nature of art.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Courk]

I think a movie that leaves clues and hints you catch after seeing it a million times is great. Every time you watch it you're sure to catch something new - this makes it an exciting experience every time you watch the movie.

Good mystery novels are like that, too. You don't catch everything that's supposed to be a clue. When you reread it, you can say, "Ah ha! This means that Susie couldn't be the killer. I wondered why the detective didn't go after her." (or something like that, I didn't want to use a real example).

[Hitchhiker]

I find it ironic that Antrax is the one defending the intricate subtleties of art when he was the one who hated the book Ulysses.

[Antrax]

At least you can spell "Blade Runner" without "ass"
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

An example from music: Two pieces I love are Steve Reich's Music for a Large Ensemble and Octet. Only after listening to them many times - to the point where you can remember every note - do you fully appreciate them. There are little melodies in the background that you don't notice much, or at all, the first time, but after many listenings you recognize that that little background melody is going to develop later on into a main theme, and you appreciate it more knowing that. It is a subtlety that inexperienced listeners - listeners who don't understand what can be gained in appreciation by listening to a piece many times - may well miss. Is that elitist? I don't know. But it's true.

[mith]

I'm still shocked Blade Runner is this close. I mean, unlike dethy, I loved BR, but come on... what Samadhi said, really.

[Logain]

Yeah I'm very surprised Blade Runner is holding on this close. Empire would make my favorite's list for nomination...Blade Runner isn't even in my top 5 Harrison Ford movies.

[Agamemnon]

You have a top five list of Harrison "three faces" Ford movies?

Wow!

[Samadhi]

[Jedo the Jedi]

Then you're responsible for the current tie!

What is wrong with you people? SW was revolutionary! Without it, we would probably still be watching movies like Casablanca (not much wrong with that, but...). Come on, someone vote for Empire and make it win.

[mith]

Aha. I think Empire must just be getting the anti-Jedo vote.

[Jedo the Jedi]

You're just going to haunt me to my grave, aren't you, mith? BAH!

[Courk]

I don't understand the logic behind, "The movie was revolutionary for it's time - vote for it."

If we were voting for films that contributed the most to modern day movies, I could understand that, but what part of new special effects techniques makes a movie good? Sure, it's nice having a new standard, but I wouldn't hold fake looking explosions against an older movie - at the time they couldn't do any better. It's not their fault. If the acting is good and there's a good, solid story that achieves what it wants to (stun you, surprise you, make you laugh, make you cry), then I think it should get the vote over a movie that has decent acting with that one minor plot hole and doesn't shock you as much as you think it would have liked. (Nothing specific about Empire in there.)

Does anyone really judge their favorite films based on how revolutionary they are?

^{Note: Jedo, this isn't aimed at you - I saw this in another thread, but this is the one I'm looking at now, so it gets the post.}

[dethwing]

I judge movies based on how much entertainment they have given me.

[Jedo the Jedi]

I agree with dethy, I don't judge a movie by it's revolutionary effect. I usually judge a movie by how much I liked it and how many times I watch it once I own it on video/DVD.

Any SW, LotR, Indiana Jones, BttF, or Matrix (this one quite a bit less than the others) I will watch over and over again. However, if it was revolutionary (like SW) I think it gives it a little bit more, especially in a vote contest. That's just how it is with me.

[Samadhi]

So you voted for it before you didn't vote for it?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Jedo the Jedi]

Huh?